Preview resuming one Apple Ads ad using its ad account ID and local profile, so you can verify the target before making changes.
Preview resuming one ad.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| profile | Yes | local Apple Ads profile name | |
| adAccountId | Yes | Apple Ads ad account ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| error | No | ||
| preview | No | ||
| summary | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the key framing that this is a preview rather than an actual state change, but it does not say whether the preview must be followed by an apply call to take effect or what a rejected preview looks like.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler and no redundancy. Its brevity edges toward under-specification rather than elegance, but structurally nothing is wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. What remains missing is the operational context an agent needs: how this preview relates to operations_apply and whether a preview expires or must be immediately consumed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is mid-range (67%) and the undescribed field is 'id', whose meaning ('the ad to resume') and accepted format are never clarified in the description. The description adds no meaning beyond the property names, leaving the parameter gap unaddressed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Preview resuming') and resource ('one ad'), which cleanly separates it from ad_pause_preview and the campaign/campaign-group resume variants. What 'preview' concretely produces versus a real resume is left implicit, but the action itself is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to prefer this over a direct resume path, no mention of a prerequisite like ad_get to obtain the id, and no explanation of the preview-to-apply workflow despite operations_apply existing as a sibling. The agent must infer the entire usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.